This morning, I attended a rather interesting press conference by the Christopher Cabaldon for Assembly Campaign held at the Sacramento City College Davis Extension Campus in South Davis. Cabaldon was there touting his record on education and receiving an endorsement from State Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell.
The event itself was well done and interesting, it was held in a classroom on the Davis Extension Campus, during class time. Actual students were in attendance. One of them told me that they were supposed to take a test today, but that was changed in order to accommodate this event.
What I do not understand is how a press conference of this sort can occur at a taxpayer financed classroom during class time. The administrator and teacher were obvious supporters of Cabaldon, but one must question the usage of state and classroom time for campaign purposes.
I have known Jack O’Connell since he was an Assemblyman down in Santa Barbara and later he moved his family to San Luis Obispo to become State Senator. O’Connell was always a strong advocate for schools and a representative in the state legislature.
The Los Angeles Times “Capital Blog” criticized elected officials including Jack O’Connell for ducking the controversial vote on College fee increases for UC and CSU.
“Lt. Gov. John Garamendi issued a statement today calling the fee hikes at the University of California and Cal State University system “an unfair tax on California’s youth, and a dangerously shortsighted move.” California, he said, has a “moral obligation to invest in our future generations.”
Yet Garamendi skipped a vote yesterday by the UC Board of Regents that raised college fees 7%, and he missed the Cal State University trustee meeting that hiked fees 10%.
In fact, not a single elected official with a vote showed up yesterday at the UC meeting in Westwood and the Cal State meeting in Long Beach. Garamendi and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (pictured together), Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and schools chief Jack O’Connell were elsewhere. All four serve as voting ex officio members of the two boards.”
Meanwhile, the Mariko Yamada for Assembly Campaign issued a press release yesterday announcing the endorsement of Davis resident and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin.
“Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin has endorsed Mariko Yamada’s candidacy in the Democratic Primary for the 8th Assembly district. Eastin lives in Davis.
Yamada, current Chair of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, has also earned the endorsement of Cirenio Rodriguez of the Yolo County Board of Education, Jim Provenza, President of the Davis Joint Unified School District and Sheila Allen, PhD member of the Davis Joint Unified School District and Rogelio Villagrana, a Trustee of the Woodland Joint Unified School District.”
This is an extremely high level of intensity for March of 2007, nearly 15 months before the primary election. Someone was telling me that in other Assembly Districts, people were announcing that they are strongly thinking about running for Assembly and in this race, there is a furious pace to line up the support of elected officials.
All of which makes for interesting times as someone following this race. Stay tuned.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada. This makes for very “uncomfortable” times for our Establishment Democratic politicos as their constituents reject their “smoke-filled back- room” choice. Their attempt at political overkill suggests panic.
The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada. This makes for very “uncomfortable” times for our Establishment Democratic politicos as their constituents reject their “smoke-filled back- room” choice. Their attempt at political overkill suggests panic.
The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada. This makes for very “uncomfortable” times for our Establishment Democratic politicos as their constituents reject their “smoke-filled back- room” choice. Their attempt at political overkill suggests panic.
The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada. This makes for very “uncomfortable” times for our Establishment Democratic politicos as their constituents reject their “smoke-filled back- room” choice. Their attempt at political overkill suggests panic.
interesting news about the electeds missing the tuition hike. it certainly put garamendi’s public denunciations of the hikes in a less flattering light.
i’m not sure how much these endorsements are really going to matter by 2008, though. i only really pay atention to them when i’m unfamiliar with a candidate, especially in nonpartisan city races. both yamada and cabaldon are already pretty well known in yolo county, ultimately i suspect that it will come down to whose campaign is able to turn its supporters out in a low-turnout primary, and who appeals to solano county voters.
interesting news about the electeds missing the tuition hike. it certainly put garamendi’s public denunciations of the hikes in a less flattering light.
i’m not sure how much these endorsements are really going to matter by 2008, though. i only really pay atention to them when i’m unfamiliar with a candidate, especially in nonpartisan city races. both yamada and cabaldon are already pretty well known in yolo county, ultimately i suspect that it will come down to whose campaign is able to turn its supporters out in a low-turnout primary, and who appeals to solano county voters.
interesting news about the electeds missing the tuition hike. it certainly put garamendi’s public denunciations of the hikes in a less flattering light.
i’m not sure how much these endorsements are really going to matter by 2008, though. i only really pay atention to them when i’m unfamiliar with a candidate, especially in nonpartisan city races. both yamada and cabaldon are already pretty well known in yolo county, ultimately i suspect that it will come down to whose campaign is able to turn its supporters out in a low-turnout primary, and who appeals to solano county voters.
interesting news about the electeds missing the tuition hike. it certainly put garamendi’s public denunciations of the hikes in a less flattering light.
i’m not sure how much these endorsements are really going to matter by 2008, though. i only really pay atention to them when i’m unfamiliar with a candidate, especially in nonpartisan city races. both yamada and cabaldon are already pretty well known in yolo county, ultimately i suspect that it will come down to whose campaign is able to turn its supporters out in a low-turnout primary, and who appeals to solano county voters.
“I have known Jack O’Connell since he was an Assemblyman down in Santa Barbara and later he moved his family to San Luis Obispo to become State Senator.”
When I was an undergrad at UCSB, O’Connell was my assemblyman. I think he lived in Ventura back then, though he represented all or most of Santa Barbara County. I met him a number of times, as he regularly spoke to my poli-sci classes. Seemed like a decent guy. Our State Senator was a man named Gary Hart. Hart and O’Connell were tied at the hip.
The Santa Barbara Hart was often confused with US Senator Gary Hart (nee Hartpence) of Colorado, who was busy running for president, when he wasn’t fooling around on the Monkey Business.
“I have known Jack O’Connell since he was an Assemblyman down in Santa Barbara and later he moved his family to San Luis Obispo to become State Senator.”
When I was an undergrad at UCSB, O’Connell was my assemblyman. I think he lived in Ventura back then, though he represented all or most of Santa Barbara County. I met him a number of times, as he regularly spoke to my poli-sci classes. Seemed like a decent guy. Our State Senator was a man named Gary Hart. Hart and O’Connell were tied at the hip.
The Santa Barbara Hart was often confused with US Senator Gary Hart (nee Hartpence) of Colorado, who was busy running for president, when he wasn’t fooling around on the Monkey Business.
“I have known Jack O’Connell since he was an Assemblyman down in Santa Barbara and later he moved his family to San Luis Obispo to become State Senator.”
When I was an undergrad at UCSB, O’Connell was my assemblyman. I think he lived in Ventura back then, though he represented all or most of Santa Barbara County. I met him a number of times, as he regularly spoke to my poli-sci classes. Seemed like a decent guy. Our State Senator was a man named Gary Hart. Hart and O’Connell were tied at the hip.
The Santa Barbara Hart was often confused with US Senator Gary Hart (nee Hartpence) of Colorado, who was busy running for president, when he wasn’t fooling around on the Monkey Business.
“I have known Jack O’Connell since he was an Assemblyman down in Santa Barbara and later he moved his family to San Luis Obispo to become State Senator.”
When I was an undergrad at UCSB, O’Connell was my assemblyman. I think he lived in Ventura back then, though he represented all or most of Santa Barbara County. I met him a number of times, as he regularly spoke to my poli-sci classes. Seemed like a decent guy. Our State Senator was a man named Gary Hart. Hart and O’Connell were tied at the hip.
The Santa Barbara Hart was often confused with US Senator Gary Hart (nee Hartpence) of Colorado, who was busy running for president, when he wasn’t fooling around on the Monkey Business.
O’Connell was Hart’s District Director I believe and then ran for his Assembly seat when Hart moved to the State Senate.
O’Connell is an outstanding politician–consummate politician–he knows everyone’s name, makes contact, remembers your face, etc.
O’Connell was Hart’s District Director I believe and then ran for his Assembly seat when Hart moved to the State Senate.
O’Connell is an outstanding politician–consummate politician–he knows everyone’s name, makes contact, remembers your face, etc.
O’Connell was Hart’s District Director I believe and then ran for his Assembly seat when Hart moved to the State Senate.
O’Connell is an outstanding politician–consummate politician–he knows everyone’s name, makes contact, remembers your face, etc.
O’Connell was Hart’s District Director I believe and then ran for his Assembly seat when Hart moved to the State Senate.
O’Connell is an outstanding politician–consummate politician–he knows everyone’s name, makes contact, remembers your face, etc.
Thanks to Surfputah and Wu Ming for this:
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.
Yamada, who announced her candidacy earlier this month for the Democratic primary in the 8th Assembly District, said she also attended the George W. Bush protest last summer in West Sacramento. But her opponent, Christopher Cabaldon, was on the other side of the fence listening to the president speak on fuel cell technology. “
Christopher is an establishment guy. He’s made a career out of fostering ties with various elected officials, he brought in a great deal of big box growth and big money into West Sacramento. He claims the results have been staggering, but the truth is in the eye of the beholder and wealthy and new citizens have done well, a lot of the poorer residents have not.
This race should be about what kind of Democrat you want to be. Mariko has to turn it into that to win.
Thanks to Surfputah and Wu Ming for this:
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.
Yamada, who announced her candidacy earlier this month for the Democratic primary in the 8th Assembly District, said she also attended the George W. Bush protest last summer in West Sacramento. But her opponent, Christopher Cabaldon, was on the other side of the fence listening to the president speak on fuel cell technology. “
Christopher is an establishment guy. He’s made a career out of fostering ties with various elected officials, he brought in a great deal of big box growth and big money into West Sacramento. He claims the results have been staggering, but the truth is in the eye of the beholder and wealthy and new citizens have done well, a lot of the poorer residents have not.
This race should be about what kind of Democrat you want to be. Mariko has to turn it into that to win.
Thanks to Surfputah and Wu Ming for this:
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.
Yamada, who announced her candidacy earlier this month for the Democratic primary in the 8th Assembly District, said she also attended the George W. Bush protest last summer in West Sacramento. But her opponent, Christopher Cabaldon, was on the other side of the fence listening to the president speak on fuel cell technology. “
Christopher is an establishment guy. He’s made a career out of fostering ties with various elected officials, he brought in a great deal of big box growth and big money into West Sacramento. He claims the results have been staggering, but the truth is in the eye of the beholder and wealthy and new citizens have done well, a lot of the poorer residents have not.
This race should be about what kind of Democrat you want to be. Mariko has to turn it into that to win.
Thanks to Surfputah and Wu Ming for this:
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.
Yamada, who announced her candidacy earlier this month for the Democratic primary in the 8th Assembly District, said she also attended the George W. Bush protest last summer in West Sacramento. But her opponent, Christopher Cabaldon, was on the other side of the fence listening to the president speak on fuel cell technology. “
Christopher is an establishment guy. He’s made a career out of fostering ties with various elected officials, he brought in a great deal of big box growth and big money into West Sacramento. He claims the results have been staggering, but the truth is in the eye of the beholder and wealthy and new citizens have done well, a lot of the poorer residents have not.
This race should be about what kind of Democrat you want to be. Mariko has to turn it into that to win.
“The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada.”
You’ve taken a scientific poll?
My guess is that if a serious Solano County-based candidate does not enter the race, money and organization (more than ideology) will make the big difference in this contest.
Yamada will win Davis. Cabaldón will win West Sac. The rest of Yolo County will be close, one way or the other.
The difference will come in the Solano County battleground, where neither (I suspect) is well known. If one of Yamada or Cabaldón is better able to get her/his name out to the primary voters (due to having more money or better organization or maybe even more and better Solano County endorsements), that person will win.
The left-wing ideologues (e.g., Davisite or Parasite or Constructionsite) of Davis will not be the determinant factor in this election. It will be the run-of-the-mill regular Democrats in Vacaville, Fairfield, Benecia, etc., who likely will pay zero attention to this race for the next 13-14 months.
(All that changes, of course, if a serious candidate from Solano County joins the fray.)
“The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada.”
You’ve taken a scientific poll?
My guess is that if a serious Solano County-based candidate does not enter the race, money and organization (more than ideology) will make the big difference in this contest.
Yamada will win Davis. Cabaldón will win West Sac. The rest of Yolo County will be close, one way or the other.
The difference will come in the Solano County battleground, where neither (I suspect) is well known. If one of Yamada or Cabaldón is better able to get her/his name out to the primary voters (due to having more money or better organization or maybe even more and better Solano County endorsements), that person will win.
The left-wing ideologues (e.g., Davisite or Parasite or Constructionsite) of Davis will not be the determinant factor in this election. It will be the run-of-the-mill regular Democrats in Vacaville, Fairfield, Benecia, etc., who likely will pay zero attention to this race for the next 13-14 months.
(All that changes, of course, if a serious candidate from Solano County joins the fray.)
“The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada.”
You’ve taken a scientific poll?
My guess is that if a serious Solano County-based candidate does not enter the race, money and organization (more than ideology) will make the big difference in this contest.
Yamada will win Davis. Cabaldón will win West Sac. The rest of Yolo County will be close, one way or the other.
The difference will come in the Solano County battleground, where neither (I suspect) is well known. If one of Yamada or Cabaldón is better able to get her/his name out to the primary voters (due to having more money or better organization or maybe even more and better Solano County endorsements), that person will win.
The left-wing ideologues (e.g., Davisite or Parasite or Constructionsite) of Davis will not be the determinant factor in this election. It will be the run-of-the-mill regular Democrats in Vacaville, Fairfield, Benecia, etc., who likely will pay zero attention to this race for the next 13-14 months.
(All that changes, of course, if a serious candidate from Solano County joins the fray.)
“The Democratic political machine backed Calbadon prematurely as the Democratic rank and file will support Mariko Yamada.”
You’ve taken a scientific poll?
My guess is that if a serious Solano County-based candidate does not enter the race, money and organization (more than ideology) will make the big difference in this contest.
Yamada will win Davis. Cabaldón will win West Sac. The rest of Yolo County will be close, one way or the other.
The difference will come in the Solano County battleground, where neither (I suspect) is well known. If one of Yamada or Cabaldón is better able to get her/his name out to the primary voters (due to having more money or better organization or maybe even more and better Solano County endorsements), that person will win.
The left-wing ideologues (e.g., Davisite or Parasite or Constructionsite) of Davis will not be the determinant factor in this election. It will be the run-of-the-mill regular Democrats in Vacaville, Fairfield, Benecia, etc., who likely will pay zero attention to this race for the next 13-14 months.
(All that changes, of course, if a serious candidate from Solano County joins the fray.)
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.”
Hanging soldiers in effigy isn’t going to get my vote. I wonder if Mariko Yamada really supports that kind of protest?
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.”
Hanging soldiers in effigy isn’t going to get my vote. I wonder if Mariko Yamada really supports that kind of protest?
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.”
Hanging soldiers in effigy isn’t going to get my vote. I wonder if Mariko Yamada really supports that kind of protest?
“At the intersection of 16th and Broadway in Sacramento, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Yolo County Green Party representatives came to show support of the demonstration organized by Stephen and Virginia Pearcy.”
Hanging soldiers in effigy isn’t going to get my vote. I wonder if Mariko Yamada really supports that kind of protest?
well, at least they are protesting the ongoing atrocity in Iraq, a war that never should have been launched to begin with, a war of choice, a war for oil, among other things, and it would be nice if the Democrats in Congress would develop sufficient backbone to bring the troops home immediately and bring the occupation to an end
–Richard Estes
well, at least they are protesting the ongoing atrocity in Iraq, a war that never should have been launched to begin with, a war of choice, a war for oil, among other things, and it would be nice if the Democrats in Congress would develop sufficient backbone to bring the troops home immediately and bring the occupation to an end
–Richard Estes
well, at least they are protesting the ongoing atrocity in Iraq, a war that never should have been launched to begin with, a war of choice, a war for oil, among other things, and it would be nice if the Democrats in Congress would develop sufficient backbone to bring the troops home immediately and bring the occupation to an end
–Richard Estes
well, at least they are protesting the ongoing atrocity in Iraq, a war that never should have been launched to begin with, a war of choice, a war for oil, among other things, and it would be nice if the Democrats in Congress would develop sufficient backbone to bring the troops home immediately and bring the occupation to an end
–Richard Estes
I would guess that the population centers in Solano are much more like Davis than West Sac. As I remember it, they tried for a County measure recently much like measure J. Although it was defeated, there was strong grassroots energy for it. Solano will go for Yamada rather than Calbadon who has been tagged as the Developer’s Candidate.
I would guess that the population centers in Solano are much more like Davis than West Sac. As I remember it, they tried for a County measure recently much like measure J. Although it was defeated, there was strong grassroots energy for it. Solano will go for Yamada rather than Calbadon who has been tagged as the Developer’s Candidate.
I would guess that the population centers in Solano are much more like Davis than West Sac. As I remember it, they tried for a County measure recently much like measure J. Although it was defeated, there was strong grassroots energy for it. Solano will go for Yamada rather than Calbadon who has been tagged as the Developer’s Candidate.
I would guess that the population centers in Solano are much more like Davis than West Sac. As I remember it, they tried for a County measure recently much like measure J. Although it was defeated, there was strong grassroots energy for it. Solano will go for Yamada rather than Calbadon who has been tagged as the Developer’s Candidate.
got a link for that, don? i wasn’t there, but haven’t seen anything about effigies in any of the coverage i’ve seen, in the sacramento bee or indymedia.
as for figuring out where solano dems will go, it’s a) a logn way out, and b) kind of an exercise in projection, from what i can tell. what makes someone “run-of-the-mill” or an “ideologue” in online rhetoric tends more often than not to be “someone who agrees with me” or “someone who disagrees with me,” i’ve found.
i suspect that solano and yolo county democrats’ positions on the issues are more alike than they are similar, although i will admit up front that i know virtually nothing about the local dem grassroots in solano county. the fact that there are close to no active solano blogs, lefty or otherwise, doesn’t make it any easier.
the real question is whether those endorsements will bring with them tangible organizational clout, or whether they’re just names on a flyer immediately tossed in recycling. the money, OTOH, is always helpful (to the candidate, if not the democratic process), and cabaldon will have that advantage right off the bat.
got a link for that, don? i wasn’t there, but haven’t seen anything about effigies in any of the coverage i’ve seen, in the sacramento bee or indymedia.
as for figuring out where solano dems will go, it’s a) a logn way out, and b) kind of an exercise in projection, from what i can tell. what makes someone “run-of-the-mill” or an “ideologue” in online rhetoric tends more often than not to be “someone who agrees with me” or “someone who disagrees with me,” i’ve found.
i suspect that solano and yolo county democrats’ positions on the issues are more alike than they are similar, although i will admit up front that i know virtually nothing about the local dem grassroots in solano county. the fact that there are close to no active solano blogs, lefty or otherwise, doesn’t make it any easier.
the real question is whether those endorsements will bring with them tangible organizational clout, or whether they’re just names on a flyer immediately tossed in recycling. the money, OTOH, is always helpful (to the candidate, if not the democratic process), and cabaldon will have that advantage right off the bat.
got a link for that, don? i wasn’t there, but haven’t seen anything about effigies in any of the coverage i’ve seen, in the sacramento bee or indymedia.
as for figuring out where solano dems will go, it’s a) a logn way out, and b) kind of an exercise in projection, from what i can tell. what makes someone “run-of-the-mill” or an “ideologue” in online rhetoric tends more often than not to be “someone who agrees with me” or “someone who disagrees with me,” i’ve found.
i suspect that solano and yolo county democrats’ positions on the issues are more alike than they are similar, although i will admit up front that i know virtually nothing about the local dem grassroots in solano county. the fact that there are close to no active solano blogs, lefty or otherwise, doesn’t make it any easier.
the real question is whether those endorsements will bring with them tangible organizational clout, or whether they’re just names on a flyer immediately tossed in recycling. the money, OTOH, is always helpful (to the candidate, if not the democratic process), and cabaldon will have that advantage right off the bat.
got a link for that, don? i wasn’t there, but haven’t seen anything about effigies in any of the coverage i’ve seen, in the sacramento bee or indymedia.
as for figuring out where solano dems will go, it’s a) a logn way out, and b) kind of an exercise in projection, from what i can tell. what makes someone “run-of-the-mill” or an “ideologue” in online rhetoric tends more often than not to be “someone who agrees with me” or “someone who disagrees with me,” i’ve found.
i suspect that solano and yolo county democrats’ positions on the issues are more alike than they are similar, although i will admit up front that i know virtually nothing about the local dem grassroots in solano county. the fact that there are close to no active solano blogs, lefty or otherwise, doesn’t make it any easier.
the real question is whether those endorsements will bring with them tangible organizational clout, or whether they’re just names on a flyer immediately tossed in recycling. the money, OTOH, is always helpful (to the candidate, if not the democratic process), and cabaldon will have that advantage right off the bat.
Stephen and Virginia Pearcy gained notoriety originally for the effigy they hung on their home.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001133.html
They are free to express their viewpoint in whatever manner they wish. But I think the manner they chose was despicable. If I were a candidate for public office, I wouldn’t appear in public with them.
Stephen and Virginia Pearcy gained notoriety originally for the effigy they hung on their home.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001133.html
They are free to express their viewpoint in whatever manner they wish. But I think the manner they chose was despicable. If I were a candidate for public office, I wouldn’t appear in public with them.
Stephen and Virginia Pearcy gained notoriety originally for the effigy they hung on their home.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001133.html
They are free to express their viewpoint in whatever manner they wish. But I think the manner they chose was despicable. If I were a candidate for public office, I wouldn’t appear in public with them.
Stephen and Virginia Pearcy gained notoriety originally for the effigy they hung on their home.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001133.html
They are free to express their viewpoint in whatever manner they wish. But I think the manner they chose was despicable. If I were a candidate for public office, I wouldn’t appear in public with them.
But to be clear, there was no effigy at this particular protest, correct?
But to be clear, there was no effigy at this particular protest, correct?
But to be clear, there was no effigy at this particular protest, correct?
But to be clear, there was no effigy at this particular protest, correct?
With her background in social work and delivering services to constituents in Yolo County, Mariko – as I’ve heard her say on many occasions – is concerned and wants to ensure that Veterans who are returning from the war have the services (i.e. quality health care, counseling, etc.) that they need and are entitled to.
I too am opposed to the war; however, it absolutely disgusts me that all men and women who have given their time to serve our country are not treated with the utmost respect by the very government that sent them to war. It’s quite sad.
I represent employees and once represented an employee who received 8 purple hearts during his career in the military. He was a well decorated Veteran.
Upon returning to the U.S. he had to receive medical attention due to a bomb that hit the vehicle that he was driving. I and some others had to fight to ensure that he received his medical benefits and all that he was entitled to.
There have been elected officials, such as Joe Baca who have done a lot to ensure that Veteran’s are well taken care of when they return.
I honestly believe that our state and our country are going to have to provide a lot more funding to help the men and women who return from the war.
As a member of the Assembly I think Mariko will do a lot to work on providing funding for the services needed.
correct Vicente.
With her background in social work and delivering services to constituents in Yolo County, Mariko – as I’ve heard her say on many occasions – is concerned and wants to ensure that Veterans who are returning from the war have the services (i.e. quality health care, counseling, etc.) that they need and are entitled to.
I too am opposed to the war; however, it absolutely disgusts me that all men and women who have given their time to serve our country are not treated with the utmost respect by the very government that sent them to war. It’s quite sad.
I represent employees and once represented an employee who received 8 purple hearts during his career in the military. He was a well decorated Veteran.
Upon returning to the U.S. he had to receive medical attention due to a bomb that hit the vehicle that he was driving. I and some others had to fight to ensure that he received his medical benefits and all that he was entitled to.
There have been elected officials, such as Joe Baca who have done a lot to ensure that Veteran’s are well taken care of when they return.
I honestly believe that our state and our country are going to have to provide a lot more funding to help the men and women who return from the war.
As a member of the Assembly I think Mariko will do a lot to work on providing funding for the services needed.
correct Vicente.
With her background in social work and delivering services to constituents in Yolo County, Mariko – as I’ve heard her say on many occasions – is concerned and wants to ensure that Veterans who are returning from the war have the services (i.e. quality health care, counseling, etc.) that they need and are entitled to.
I too am opposed to the war; however, it absolutely disgusts me that all men and women who have given their time to serve our country are not treated with the utmost respect by the very government that sent them to war. It’s quite sad.
I represent employees and once represented an employee who received 8 purple hearts during his career in the military. He was a well decorated Veteran.
Upon returning to the U.S. he had to receive medical attention due to a bomb that hit the vehicle that he was driving. I and some others had to fight to ensure that he received his medical benefits and all that he was entitled to.
There have been elected officials, such as Joe Baca who have done a lot to ensure that Veteran’s are well taken care of when they return.
I honestly believe that our state and our country are going to have to provide a lot more funding to help the men and women who return from the war.
As a member of the Assembly I think Mariko will do a lot to work on providing funding for the services needed.
correct Vicente.
With her background in social work and delivering services to constituents in Yolo County, Mariko – as I’ve heard her say on many occasions – is concerned and wants to ensure that Veterans who are returning from the war have the services (i.e. quality health care, counseling, etc.) that they need and are entitled to.
I too am opposed to the war; however, it absolutely disgusts me that all men and women who have given their time to serve our country are not treated with the utmost respect by the very government that sent them to war. It’s quite sad.
I represent employees and once represented an employee who received 8 purple hearts during his career in the military. He was a well decorated Veteran.
Upon returning to the U.S. he had to receive medical attention due to a bomb that hit the vehicle that he was driving. I and some others had to fight to ensure that he received his medical benefits and all that he was entitled to.
There have been elected officials, such as Joe Baca who have done a lot to ensure that Veteran’s are well taken care of when they return.
I honestly believe that our state and our country are going to have to provide a lot more funding to help the men and women who return from the war.
As a member of the Assembly I think Mariko will do a lot to work on providing funding for the services needed.
correct Vicente.
Davis supporters of Mariko are already expressing personal commitments to walk precincts in Solano as well as Davis. The grassroots energy of Mariko’s supporters will more than balance out Calbadon’s money advantage. Primaries are won by the side that passionately cares and walks precincts, not who loads the mailboxes with 5-color adverts containing meaningless endorsements from the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” politicos.
Davis supporters of Mariko are already expressing personal commitments to walk precincts in Solano as well as Davis. The grassroots energy of Mariko’s supporters will more than balance out Calbadon’s money advantage. Primaries are won by the side that passionately cares and walks precincts, not who loads the mailboxes with 5-color adverts containing meaningless endorsements from the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” politicos.
Davis supporters of Mariko are already expressing personal commitments to walk precincts in Solano as well as Davis. The grassroots energy of Mariko’s supporters will more than balance out Calbadon’s money advantage. Primaries are won by the side that passionately cares and walks precincts, not who loads the mailboxes with 5-color adverts containing meaningless endorsements from the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” politicos.
Davis supporters of Mariko are already expressing personal commitments to walk precincts in Solano as well as Davis. The grassroots energy of Mariko’s supporters will more than balance out Calbadon’s money advantage. Primaries are won by the side that passionately cares and walks precincts, not who loads the mailboxes with 5-color adverts containing meaningless endorsements from the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” politicos.
I’ve always found it hard to read Solano County voters (I’ve been one for 30 years), except that Vallejo always goes heavily Democratic. The voters twice have turned down tax increases for transportation projects, although those increases were supported by most local elected officials. The most recent one didn’t even get 50% of the vote, much less the 2/3 required.
The measure that was to renew the growth management initiative, which had been in place for many years, failed by a narrow margin this time. Benicia voters turned down a parcel tax for the schools.
I’ve always found it hard to read Solano County voters (I’ve been one for 30 years), except that Vallejo always goes heavily Democratic. The voters twice have turned down tax increases for transportation projects, although those increases were supported by most local elected officials. The most recent one didn’t even get 50% of the vote, much less the 2/3 required.
The measure that was to renew the growth management initiative, which had been in place for many years, failed by a narrow margin this time. Benicia voters turned down a parcel tax for the schools.
I’ve always found it hard to read Solano County voters (I’ve been one for 30 years), except that Vallejo always goes heavily Democratic. The voters twice have turned down tax increases for transportation projects, although those increases were supported by most local elected officials. The most recent one didn’t even get 50% of the vote, much less the 2/3 required.
The measure that was to renew the growth management initiative, which had been in place for many years, failed by a narrow margin this time. Benicia voters turned down a parcel tax for the schools.
I’ve always found it hard to read Solano County voters (I’ve been one for 30 years), except that Vallejo always goes heavily Democratic. The voters twice have turned down tax increases for transportation projects, although those increases were supported by most local elected officials. The most recent one didn’t even get 50% of the vote, much less the 2/3 required.
The measure that was to renew the growth management initiative, which had been in place for many years, failed by a narrow margin this time. Benicia voters turned down a parcel tax for the schools.
Davis volunteers walking precincts in Solano County for Mariko would be great….for Cabaldon. You should read the comments in the Dixon paper about Davis’ lawsuit against the racetrack.
Seriously: Davis is to the left of every other city in the area. Mariko would do well to start developing local friends in Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield and avoid tying herself too closely to the farthest-left part of the Democratic Party.
Davis volunteers walking precincts in Solano County for Mariko would be great….for Cabaldon. You should read the comments in the Dixon paper about Davis’ lawsuit against the racetrack.
Seriously: Davis is to the left of every other city in the area. Mariko would do well to start developing local friends in Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield and avoid tying herself too closely to the farthest-left part of the Democratic Party.
Davis volunteers walking precincts in Solano County for Mariko would be great….for Cabaldon. You should read the comments in the Dixon paper about Davis’ lawsuit against the racetrack.
Seriously: Davis is to the left of every other city in the area. Mariko would do well to start developing local friends in Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield and avoid tying herself too closely to the farthest-left part of the Democratic Party.
Davis volunteers walking precincts in Solano County for Mariko would be great….for Cabaldon. You should read the comments in the Dixon paper about Davis’ lawsuit against the racetrack.
Seriously: Davis is to the left of every other city in the area. Mariko would do well to start developing local friends in Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield and avoid tying herself too closely to the farthest-left part of the Democratic Party.
I apologize for my earlier outburst. Let me just say that if you are going to protest this war (and I strongly oppose the current strategy), please be respectful of the troops and of the flag. I didn’t mean to derail this thread.
Support for the health needs of the returning soldiers would be an excellent point for Mariko to hammer on, especially in the Vacaville/Fairfield area. We are going to be paying lifetime health care costs for tens of thousands of physically and mentally wounded soldiers. This will have an impact at federal, state, and county levels for services needed. I am especially concerned about mental health costs, as those are often disproportionately borne by county governments.
I apologize for my earlier outburst. Let me just say that if you are going to protest this war (and I strongly oppose the current strategy), please be respectful of the troops and of the flag. I didn’t mean to derail this thread.
Support for the health needs of the returning soldiers would be an excellent point for Mariko to hammer on, especially in the Vacaville/Fairfield area. We are going to be paying lifetime health care costs for tens of thousands of physically and mentally wounded soldiers. This will have an impact at federal, state, and county levels for services needed. I am especially concerned about mental health costs, as those are often disproportionately borne by county governments.
I apologize for my earlier outburst. Let me just say that if you are going to protest this war (and I strongly oppose the current strategy), please be respectful of the troops and of the flag. I didn’t mean to derail this thread.
Support for the health needs of the returning soldiers would be an excellent point for Mariko to hammer on, especially in the Vacaville/Fairfield area. We are going to be paying lifetime health care costs for tens of thousands of physically and mentally wounded soldiers. This will have an impact at federal, state, and county levels for services needed. I am especially concerned about mental health costs, as those are often disproportionately borne by county governments.
I apologize for my earlier outburst. Let me just say that if you are going to protest this war (and I strongly oppose the current strategy), please be respectful of the troops and of the flag. I didn’t mean to derail this thread.
Support for the health needs of the returning soldiers would be an excellent point for Mariko to hammer on, especially in the Vacaville/Fairfield area. We are going to be paying lifetime health care costs for tens of thousands of physically and mentally wounded soldiers. This will have an impact at federal, state, and county levels for services needed. I am especially concerned about mental health costs, as those are often disproportionately borne by county governments.
Don… and the No on Dixon Downs people are delighted to have the people of Davis engaged and in support of their referendum. The question is.. will Yamada or Calbadon get more Democratic voters out to the polls in this projected low turn-out primary?
Don… and the No on Dixon Downs people are delighted to have the people of Davis engaged and in support of their referendum. The question is.. will Yamada or Calbadon get more Democratic voters out to the polls in this projected low turn-out primary?
Don… and the No on Dixon Downs people are delighted to have the people of Davis engaged and in support of their referendum. The question is.. will Yamada or Calbadon get more Democratic voters out to the polls in this projected low turn-out primary?
Don… and the No on Dixon Downs people are delighted to have the people of Davis engaged and in support of their referendum. The question is.. will Yamada or Calbadon get more Democratic voters out to the polls in this projected low turn-out primary?
That’s a good question. A couple of months ago I would have predicted Dixon Downs would pass. The company hired local (ex) officials, has been marketing itself very effectively, and the opposition seemed to be very slow to get going. But if lawn signs and letters to the editor are any indication, the momentum seems to be against the racetrack. Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
That’s a good question. A couple of months ago I would have predicted Dixon Downs would pass. The company hired local (ex) officials, has been marketing itself very effectively, and the opposition seemed to be very slow to get going. But if lawn signs and letters to the editor are any indication, the momentum seems to be against the racetrack. Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
That’s a good question. A couple of months ago I would have predicted Dixon Downs would pass. The company hired local (ex) officials, has been marketing itself very effectively, and the opposition seemed to be very slow to get going. But if lawn signs and letters to the editor are any indication, the momentum seems to be against the racetrack. Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
That’s a good question. A couple of months ago I would have predicted Dixon Downs would pass. The company hired local (ex) officials, has been marketing itself very effectively, and the opposition seemed to be very slow to get going. But if lawn signs and letters to the editor are any indication, the momentum seems to be against the racetrack. Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
“a war for oil”
Richard,
What do you mean when you say that? I’ve heard many people claim it’s ‘a war for oil’ and they cannot or do not articulate exactly what that means.
As you know, we have not confiscated any oil or any oil fields, so this is not a war for confiscation. (By contrast, when Japan captured the Dutch East Indies in WW2, that is exactly what the Japanese did.) Nor have we intercepted any oil tankers at sea and stolen Iraqi crude.
As you know, the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world (by far). So it obviously would be in our national interest to lower the price of petroleum and stabilize international supplies. Has the Iraq War done either of those? No, just the opposite in both cases. So the Iraq War cannot be said to have been fought for our national oil interests.
Finally, some suggest because President Bush was formerly in the oil business (and his VP was in the oil services business) that we went to war in order to improve the finances of these industries. In other words, they are saying that President Bush and all of his hundreds of advisors conspired against what they believed to be the national interest in order to benefit a small number of oil investors.
Not only is that claim not based on any known facts, but it assumes that the hundreds of PNAC-ideologues in the Bush Administration were lying for about 15 years when they passionately argued for the overthrow of Saddam for ideological reasons.
Thus, I am stumped. I just don’t get it when someone says, “it’s a war for oil.”
“a war for oil”
Richard,
What do you mean when you say that? I’ve heard many people claim it’s ‘a war for oil’ and they cannot or do not articulate exactly what that means.
As you know, we have not confiscated any oil or any oil fields, so this is not a war for confiscation. (By contrast, when Japan captured the Dutch East Indies in WW2, that is exactly what the Japanese did.) Nor have we intercepted any oil tankers at sea and stolen Iraqi crude.
As you know, the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world (by far). So it obviously would be in our national interest to lower the price of petroleum and stabilize international supplies. Has the Iraq War done either of those? No, just the opposite in both cases. So the Iraq War cannot be said to have been fought for our national oil interests.
Finally, some suggest because President Bush was formerly in the oil business (and his VP was in the oil services business) that we went to war in order to improve the finances of these industries. In other words, they are saying that President Bush and all of his hundreds of advisors conspired against what they believed to be the national interest in order to benefit a small number of oil investors.
Not only is that claim not based on any known facts, but it assumes that the hundreds of PNAC-ideologues in the Bush Administration were lying for about 15 years when they passionately argued for the overthrow of Saddam for ideological reasons.
Thus, I am stumped. I just don’t get it when someone says, “it’s a war for oil.”
“a war for oil”
Richard,
What do you mean when you say that? I’ve heard many people claim it’s ‘a war for oil’ and they cannot or do not articulate exactly what that means.
As you know, we have not confiscated any oil or any oil fields, so this is not a war for confiscation. (By contrast, when Japan captured the Dutch East Indies in WW2, that is exactly what the Japanese did.) Nor have we intercepted any oil tankers at sea and stolen Iraqi crude.
As you know, the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world (by far). So it obviously would be in our national interest to lower the price of petroleum and stabilize international supplies. Has the Iraq War done either of those? No, just the opposite in both cases. So the Iraq War cannot be said to have been fought for our national oil interests.
Finally, some suggest because President Bush was formerly in the oil business (and his VP was in the oil services business) that we went to war in order to improve the finances of these industries. In other words, they are saying that President Bush and all of his hundreds of advisors conspired against what they believed to be the national interest in order to benefit a small number of oil investors.
Not only is that claim not based on any known facts, but it assumes that the hundreds of PNAC-ideologues in the Bush Administration were lying for about 15 years when they passionately argued for the overthrow of Saddam for ideological reasons.
Thus, I am stumped. I just don’t get it when someone says, “it’s a war for oil.”
“a war for oil”
Richard,
What do you mean when you say that? I’ve heard many people claim it’s ‘a war for oil’ and they cannot or do not articulate exactly what that means.
As you know, we have not confiscated any oil or any oil fields, so this is not a war for confiscation. (By contrast, when Japan captured the Dutch East Indies in WW2, that is exactly what the Japanese did.) Nor have we intercepted any oil tankers at sea and stolen Iraqi crude.
As you know, the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world (by far). So it obviously would be in our national interest to lower the price of petroleum and stabilize international supplies. Has the Iraq War done either of those? No, just the opposite in both cases. So the Iraq War cannot be said to have been fought for our national oil interests.
Finally, some suggest because President Bush was formerly in the oil business (and his VP was in the oil services business) that we went to war in order to improve the finances of these industries. In other words, they are saying that President Bush and all of his hundreds of advisors conspired against what they believed to be the national interest in order to benefit a small number of oil investors.
Not only is that claim not based on any known facts, but it assumes that the hundreds of PNAC-ideologues in the Bush Administration were lying for about 15 years when they passionately argued for the overthrow of Saddam for ideological reasons.
Thus, I am stumped. I just don’t get it when someone says, “it’s a war for oil.”
For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.
For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.
For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.
For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.
Nonetheless, I think any rational American can agree that:
1) It has been a huge disaster for us, in every sense;
2) It has been a disaster for the Western alliance;
3) It has been a disaster for the region (with the possible exception of Iran, our worst enemy in the area);
4) It has been a disaster for many, if not most Iraqis (with the strong exception of the Kurds); and
5) Whatever direction we go from here, there is no option without huge risks, costs and bad consequences.
Nonetheless, I think any rational American can agree that:
1) It has been a huge disaster for us, in every sense;
2) It has been a disaster for the Western alliance;
3) It has been a disaster for the region (with the possible exception of Iran, our worst enemy in the area);
4) It has been a disaster for many, if not most Iraqis (with the strong exception of the Kurds); and
5) Whatever direction we go from here, there is no option without huge risks, costs and bad consequences.
Nonetheless, I think any rational American can agree that:
1) It has been a huge disaster for us, in every sense;
2) It has been a disaster for the Western alliance;
3) It has been a disaster for the region (with the possible exception of Iran, our worst enemy in the area);
4) It has been a disaster for many, if not most Iraqis (with the strong exception of the Kurds); and
5) Whatever direction we go from here, there is no option without huge risks, costs and bad consequences.
Nonetheless, I think any rational American can agree that:
1) It has been a huge disaster for us, in every sense;
2) It has been a disaster for the Western alliance;
3) It has been a disaster for the region (with the possible exception of Iran, our worst enemy in the area);
4) It has been a disaster for many, if not most Iraqis (with the strong exception of the Kurds); and
5) Whatever direction we go from here, there is no option without huge risks, costs and bad consequences.
“For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.”
What?
We already had a ‘steady supply’ of oil prior to the Iraq War. Second, the U.S. is not now (nor has it ever been in the past) dependent on Iraq for our supply of oil. So that argument is factually unsuportable.
“For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.”
What?
We already had a ‘steady supply’ of oil prior to the Iraq War. Second, the U.S. is not now (nor has it ever been in the past) dependent on Iraq for our supply of oil. So that argument is factually unsuportable.
“For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.”
What?
We already had a ‘steady supply’ of oil prior to the Iraq War. Second, the U.S. is not now (nor has it ever been in the past) dependent on Iraq for our supply of oil. So that argument is factually unsuportable.
“For me it is a war for oil because without oil and the need to maintain a steady supply our interest in the middle east would not be sufficient to warrant that type of intervention.”
What?
We already had a ‘steady supply’ of oil prior to the Iraq War. Second, the U.S. is not now (nor has it ever been in the past) dependent on Iraq for our supply of oil. So that argument is factually unsuportable.
Richard said “a war for oil, among other things….”
The various unstated reasons for this war included ideology, strategic concerns, and more. Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns. Imagine if Iraq’s oil was in the control of an unstable Shi’ite government? Which, just as it happens, is exactly what we’ve accomplished in four years.
The stated reasons, of course, were that Iraq was an “imminent threat” due to WMD’s and ties to terrorists. The fact that neither turned out to be true isn’t much consolation once you’ve removed the civilian and military leadership of a country and created a vacuum. There are terrorists operating in Iraq now!
Richard said “a war for oil, among other things….”
The various unstated reasons for this war included ideology, strategic concerns, and more. Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns. Imagine if Iraq’s oil was in the control of an unstable Shi’ite government? Which, just as it happens, is exactly what we’ve accomplished in four years.
The stated reasons, of course, were that Iraq was an “imminent threat” due to WMD’s and ties to terrorists. The fact that neither turned out to be true isn’t much consolation once you’ve removed the civilian and military leadership of a country and created a vacuum. There are terrorists operating in Iraq now!
Richard said “a war for oil, among other things….”
The various unstated reasons for this war included ideology, strategic concerns, and more. Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns. Imagine if Iraq’s oil was in the control of an unstable Shi’ite government? Which, just as it happens, is exactly what we’ve accomplished in four years.
The stated reasons, of course, were that Iraq was an “imminent threat” due to WMD’s and ties to terrorists. The fact that neither turned out to be true isn’t much consolation once you’ve removed the civilian and military leadership of a country and created a vacuum. There are terrorists operating in Iraq now!
Richard said “a war for oil, among other things….”
The various unstated reasons for this war included ideology, strategic concerns, and more. Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns. Imagine if Iraq’s oil was in the control of an unstable Shi’ite government? Which, just as it happens, is exactly what we’ve accomplished in four years.
The stated reasons, of course, were that Iraq was an “imminent threat” due to WMD’s and ties to terrorists. The fact that neither turned out to be true isn’t much consolation once you’ve removed the civilian and military leadership of a country and created a vacuum. There are terrorists operating in Iraq now!
Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers. But they have huge, huge oil reserves.
Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers. But they have huge, huge oil reserves.
Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers. But they have huge, huge oil reserves.
Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers. But they have huge, huge oil reserves.
no need to apologize, don, i know you’ve got a daughter over there. i can’t imagine how upset i’d be about it, were i in your shoes. the veteran’s care is going to be a huge issue, if it isn’t already in base towns like fairfield. someone with mariko’s background would be a good match for that issue, and would actually tie it into local needs.
generally, i tend to agree that the best precinct walkers are those from within a given community, not outsiders, not so much because davis is all that far left so much as that personal connections work best when you know the area and can build up a rapport.
as for the oil war, rich, here’s my take on the strategic side of things (now that we’re off on this tangent):
1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world. as does the war premium on an int’l oil market nervous about the consequences of war in the region. you pump the same oil out of the ground, but the higher market price just icnreases your profit margin. that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.
2. looking long term, the largest oilfields in the planet, and the ones that are the furthest away from being tapped out (mexico, the north sea, and russia are either flatlining or in production decline), are all in the middle east. getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze. especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.” so while american consumers aren’t getting any more oil at any cheaper a price, those campaign donors are getting a shot at a new oil field and huge oil reserves.
4. if you remember cheney’s secret energy task force, back when enron was robbing us blind and calling it “market forces,” one of the memos that they were talking about back in 2001, that a watchdog group (judicial watch IIRC) managed to get in 2004 was a map of iraqi oilfields. the oil’s not the whole ballgame, but it is one major strategic part of it.
you are totally correct that none of this really benefits the people of this country (to say nothing of iraqis), or even the national interest (if defined in terms of the regular people who inhabit it), but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house. and the geopolitics of putting permanent megabases right in the middle of the world’s oil supply is certainly a major factor in the ultimate political decisions to get involved in these wars, if not in the rhetoric that the pols use to sell this to the voters who fight them and pay the iwlls.
no need to apologize, don, i know you’ve got a daughter over there. i can’t imagine how upset i’d be about it, were i in your shoes. the veteran’s care is going to be a huge issue, if it isn’t already in base towns like fairfield. someone with mariko’s background would be a good match for that issue, and would actually tie it into local needs.
generally, i tend to agree that the best precinct walkers are those from within a given community, not outsiders, not so much because davis is all that far left so much as that personal connections work best when you know the area and can build up a rapport.
as for the oil war, rich, here’s my take on the strategic side of things (now that we’re off on this tangent):
1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world. as does the war premium on an int’l oil market nervous about the consequences of war in the region. you pump the same oil out of the ground, but the higher market price just icnreases your profit margin. that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.
2. looking long term, the largest oilfields in the planet, and the ones that are the furthest away from being tapped out (mexico, the north sea, and russia are either flatlining or in production decline), are all in the middle east. getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze. especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.” so while american consumers aren’t getting any more oil at any cheaper a price, those campaign donors are getting a shot at a new oil field and huge oil reserves.
4. if you remember cheney’s secret energy task force, back when enron was robbing us blind and calling it “market forces,” one of the memos that they were talking about back in 2001, that a watchdog group (judicial watch IIRC) managed to get in 2004 was a map of iraqi oilfields. the oil’s not the whole ballgame, but it is one major strategic part of it.
you are totally correct that none of this really benefits the people of this country (to say nothing of iraqis), or even the national interest (if defined in terms of the regular people who inhabit it), but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house. and the geopolitics of putting permanent megabases right in the middle of the world’s oil supply is certainly a major factor in the ultimate political decisions to get involved in these wars, if not in the rhetoric that the pols use to sell this to the voters who fight them and pay the iwlls.
no need to apologize, don, i know you’ve got a daughter over there. i can’t imagine how upset i’d be about it, were i in your shoes. the veteran’s care is going to be a huge issue, if it isn’t already in base towns like fairfield. someone with mariko’s background would be a good match for that issue, and would actually tie it into local needs.
generally, i tend to agree that the best precinct walkers are those from within a given community, not outsiders, not so much because davis is all that far left so much as that personal connections work best when you know the area and can build up a rapport.
as for the oil war, rich, here’s my take on the strategic side of things (now that we’re off on this tangent):
1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world. as does the war premium on an int’l oil market nervous about the consequences of war in the region. you pump the same oil out of the ground, but the higher market price just icnreases your profit margin. that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.
2. looking long term, the largest oilfields in the planet, and the ones that are the furthest away from being tapped out (mexico, the north sea, and russia are either flatlining or in production decline), are all in the middle east. getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze. especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.” so while american consumers aren’t getting any more oil at any cheaper a price, those campaign donors are getting a shot at a new oil field and huge oil reserves.
4. if you remember cheney’s secret energy task force, back when enron was robbing us blind and calling it “market forces,” one of the memos that they were talking about back in 2001, that a watchdog group (judicial watch IIRC) managed to get in 2004 was a map of iraqi oilfields. the oil’s not the whole ballgame, but it is one major strategic part of it.
you are totally correct that none of this really benefits the people of this country (to say nothing of iraqis), or even the national interest (if defined in terms of the regular people who inhabit it), but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house. and the geopolitics of putting permanent megabases right in the middle of the world’s oil supply is certainly a major factor in the ultimate political decisions to get involved in these wars, if not in the rhetoric that the pols use to sell this to the voters who fight them and pay the iwlls.
no need to apologize, don, i know you’ve got a daughter over there. i can’t imagine how upset i’d be about it, were i in your shoes. the veteran’s care is going to be a huge issue, if it isn’t already in base towns like fairfield. someone with mariko’s background would be a good match for that issue, and would actually tie it into local needs.
generally, i tend to agree that the best precinct walkers are those from within a given community, not outsiders, not so much because davis is all that far left so much as that personal connections work best when you know the area and can build up a rapport.
as for the oil war, rich, here’s my take on the strategic side of things (now that we’re off on this tangent):
1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world. as does the war premium on an int’l oil market nervous about the consequences of war in the region. you pump the same oil out of the ground, but the higher market price just icnreases your profit margin. that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.
2. looking long term, the largest oilfields in the planet, and the ones that are the furthest away from being tapped out (mexico, the north sea, and russia are either flatlining or in production decline), are all in the middle east. getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze. especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.” so while american consumers aren’t getting any more oil at any cheaper a price, those campaign donors are getting a shot at a new oil field and huge oil reserves.
4. if you remember cheney’s secret energy task force, back when enron was robbing us blind and calling it “market forces,” one of the memos that they were talking about back in 2001, that a watchdog group (judicial watch IIRC) managed to get in 2004 was a map of iraqi oilfields. the oil’s not the whole ballgame, but it is one major strategic part of it.
you are totally correct that none of this really benefits the people of this country (to say nothing of iraqis), or even the national interest (if defined in terms of the regular people who inhabit it), but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house. and the geopolitics of putting permanent megabases right in the middle of the world’s oil supply is certainly a major factor in the ultimate political decisions to get involved in these wars, if not in the rhetoric that the pols use to sell this to the voters who fight them and pay the iwlls.
Gentlemen, on cable news toward the end of the Clinton administration, James Baker and Dick Cheney were critiquing Clinton’s MiddleEast iniatives. Amindst harsh criticism of Clinton’s peace efforts, Cheney said, We don’t care if the Arabs like us, they must fear us” and James Barker chimed in saying “That oil is too important to us to be left in the hands of Arabs. The host joined in saying you get respect with fear. They complained that Clinton had undermined all the good that Desert Storm had done. I often wondered if any Arabs were watching. How could I go about getting a copy of that tape?
Gentlemen, on cable news toward the end of the Clinton administration, James Baker and Dick Cheney were critiquing Clinton’s MiddleEast iniatives. Amindst harsh criticism of Clinton’s peace efforts, Cheney said, We don’t care if the Arabs like us, they must fear us” and James Barker chimed in saying “That oil is too important to us to be left in the hands of Arabs. The host joined in saying you get respect with fear. They complained that Clinton had undermined all the good that Desert Storm had done. I often wondered if any Arabs were watching. How could I go about getting a copy of that tape?
Gentlemen, on cable news toward the end of the Clinton administration, James Baker and Dick Cheney were critiquing Clinton’s MiddleEast iniatives. Amindst harsh criticism of Clinton’s peace efforts, Cheney said, We don’t care if the Arabs like us, they must fear us” and James Barker chimed in saying “That oil is too important to us to be left in the hands of Arabs. The host joined in saying you get respect with fear. They complained that Clinton had undermined all the good that Desert Storm had done. I often wondered if any Arabs were watching. How could I go about getting a copy of that tape?
Gentlemen, on cable news toward the end of the Clinton administration, James Baker and Dick Cheney were critiquing Clinton’s MiddleEast iniatives. Amindst harsh criticism of Clinton’s peace efforts, Cheney said, We don’t care if the Arabs like us, they must fear us” and James Barker chimed in saying “That oil is too important to us to be left in the hands of Arabs. The host joined in saying you get respect with fear. They complained that Clinton had undermined all the good that Desert Storm had done. I often wondered if any Arabs were watching. How could I go about getting a copy of that tape?
So far as the election goes, I believe we will go through 2 or 3 cycles and by election time or before, the candidates and the public will be burned out. If there are any terrorist strikes, Katrina II, other natural or unnatural disasters, all bets are off for local, state and national. In other words, it’s way too soon to predict.
So far as the election goes, I believe we will go through 2 or 3 cycles and by election time or before, the candidates and the public will be burned out. If there are any terrorist strikes, Katrina II, other natural or unnatural disasters, all bets are off for local, state and national. In other words, it’s way too soon to predict.
So far as the election goes, I believe we will go through 2 or 3 cycles and by election time or before, the candidates and the public will be burned out. If there are any terrorist strikes, Katrina II, other natural or unnatural disasters, all bets are off for local, state and national. In other words, it’s way too soon to predict.
So far as the election goes, I believe we will go through 2 or 3 cycles and by election time or before, the candidates and the public will be burned out. If there are any terrorist strikes, Katrina II, other natural or unnatural disasters, all bets are off for local, state and national. In other words, it’s way too soon to predict.
Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
I continue to believe that if you substract the UCD student vote as well as the well-funded and aggressive absentee ballot Target campaign, a majority(albeit small) of Davis voters rejected Target. Dixon’s population is much smaller than Davis and even a modest bit cpmmitted grassroots Dixon voluteer force is able to “knock on every door”.
Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
I continue to believe that if you substract the UCD student vote as well as the well-funded and aggressive absentee ballot Target campaign, a majority(albeit small) of Davis voters rejected Target. Dixon’s population is much smaller than Davis and even a modest bit cpmmitted grassroots Dixon voluteer force is able to “knock on every door”.
Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
I continue to believe that if you substract the UCD student vote as well as the well-funded and aggressive absentee ballot Target campaign, a majority(albeit small) of Davis voters rejected Target. Dixon’s population is much smaller than Davis and even a modest bit cpmmitted grassroots Dixon voluteer force is able to “knock on every door”.
Of course, the momentum was against Target, too….
I continue to believe that if you substract the UCD student vote as well as the well-funded and aggressive absentee ballot Target campaign, a majority(albeit small) of Davis voters rejected Target. Dixon’s population is much smaller than Davis and even a modest bit cpmmitted grassroots Dixon voluteer force is able to “knock on every door”.
The driving force behind the decision to invade Iraq and topple Hussein was the imminent reopening of the Iraq oil spigot to the world market and the fact that Iraq was going to use the PETROEURO rather than the PETRODOLLAR financial compensation structure . This threatened the underpinnings of the US financial banking/investment system.
The driving force behind the decision to invade Iraq and topple Hussein was the imminent reopening of the Iraq oil spigot to the world market and the fact that Iraq was going to use the PETROEURO rather than the PETRODOLLAR financial compensation structure . This threatened the underpinnings of the US financial banking/investment system.
The driving force behind the decision to invade Iraq and topple Hussein was the imminent reopening of the Iraq oil spigot to the world market and the fact that Iraq was going to use the PETROEURO rather than the PETRODOLLAR financial compensation structure . This threatened the underpinnings of the US financial banking/investment system.
The driving force behind the decision to invade Iraq and topple Hussein was the imminent reopening of the Iraq oil spigot to the world market and the fact that Iraq was going to use the PETROEURO rather than the PETRODOLLAR financial compensation structure . This threatened the underpinnings of the US financial banking/investment system.
“that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.”
Personally? Come on. Neither one is in the oil business. In fact, GW Bush proved that one could be in the oil business, as he was many years ago, and never make a cent.
Cheney never was, to my knowledge, directly in the oil business. He was the CEO of Halliburton, which is not in the oil business, but rather the oil services business (and in some other service sectors, too). And so Cheney has nothing to gain personally if the price of oil rises.
“that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.”
Personally? Come on. Neither one is in the oil business. In fact, GW Bush proved that one could be in the oil business, as he was many years ago, and never make a cent.
Cheney never was, to my knowledge, directly in the oil business. He was the CEO of Halliburton, which is not in the oil business, but rather the oil services business (and in some other service sectors, too). And so Cheney has nothing to gain personally if the price of oil rises.
“that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.”
Personally? Come on. Neither one is in the oil business. In fact, GW Bush proved that one could be in the oil business, as he was many years ago, and never make a cent.
Cheney never was, to my knowledge, directly in the oil business. He was the CEO of Halliburton, which is not in the oil business, but rather the oil services business (and in some other service sectors, too). And so Cheney has nothing to gain personally if the price of oil rises.
“that might be bad for citizens, but it’s great for oilmen like our president and veep, personally.”
Personally? Come on. Neither one is in the oil business. In fact, GW Bush proved that one could be in the oil business, as he was many years ago, and never make a cent.
Cheney never was, to my knowledge, directly in the oil business. He was the CEO of Halliburton, which is not in the oil business, but rather the oil services business (and in some other service sectors, too). And so Cheney has nothing to gain personally if the price of oil rises.
“Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns.”
Oil is a fungible commodity. Iraq’s oil would be ‘available’ with war or without. Hence, availablity doesn’t make sense as a motivator for going to war.
(Note: the fact that Iraq has a lot of oil, which means a lot of money, was clearly a huge factor in why we — and most countries — viewed Saddam as a threat. Without the money, he’s just a tinpot tyrant. With money, he can project outward his aggression.)
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil. In fact, Europe is now and always has been far more dependent on Gulf oil than we have.
Wu Ming writes: 1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world.
That is, of course, true. But there’s no way that our motivation to go to war in Iraq was so that we would jack up oil prices. High oil prices are really bad for our economy.
“getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze.”
Before the Iraq War, the U.S. not only had army, naval and air bases all over the Middle East, including in the UAE, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, and in many other regional countries, but there were no other powers even close to us there in force projection. As such, going to war in Iraq did not and could not have increased our marginal power to ‘threaten,’ as you suggest. (And because the war has been such an abysmal failure, our relative power has declined.)
“especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.”
It’s been a blessing to us to leave those. We began relocating our forces to the UAE well before the Iraq War.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.”
First, if a popularly elected government is begging you to stay in their country, it’s not really ‘an occupation.’
Second, there is no country in the world in which the nationalization of their oil production has improved efficiencies. Look, for example, at the mess Pemex has caused in Mexico ever since it was nationalized. I would not have any romantic notions about nationalized industries.
“but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house.”
No doubt those players have benefitted. However, that does not mean that we were motivated to go to war for their interests over the national interest. That kind of argument parallels the America-First rhetoric in the U.S. in 1940 that said that Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany in order to benefit ‘Jewish moneyed interests’ in Europe.
I have very strong doubts about anyone who puts forward conspiracy theories that suggest that a U.S. president would act against what he knew were the national interests in order to benefit a small segment of our population or to benefit his own financial concerns. President Bush clearly made a terrible mistake in Iraq. But I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for our country.
“Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns.”
Oil is a fungible commodity. Iraq’s oil would be ‘available’ with war or without. Hence, availablity doesn’t make sense as a motivator for going to war.
(Note: the fact that Iraq has a lot of oil, which means a lot of money, was clearly a huge factor in why we — and most countries — viewed Saddam as a threat. Without the money, he’s just a tinpot tyrant. With money, he can project outward his aggression.)
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil. In fact, Europe is now and always has been far more dependent on Gulf oil than we have.
Wu Ming writes: 1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world.
That is, of course, true. But there’s no way that our motivation to go to war in Iraq was so that we would jack up oil prices. High oil prices are really bad for our economy.
“getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze.”
Before the Iraq War, the U.S. not only had army, naval and air bases all over the Middle East, including in the UAE, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, and in many other regional countries, but there were no other powers even close to us there in force projection. As such, going to war in Iraq did not and could not have increased our marginal power to ‘threaten,’ as you suggest. (And because the war has been such an abysmal failure, our relative power has declined.)
“especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.”
It’s been a blessing to us to leave those. We began relocating our forces to the UAE well before the Iraq War.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.”
First, if a popularly elected government is begging you to stay in their country, it’s not really ‘an occupation.’
Second, there is no country in the world in which the nationalization of their oil production has improved efficiencies. Look, for example, at the mess Pemex has caused in Mexico ever since it was nationalized. I would not have any romantic notions about nationalized industries.
“but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house.”
No doubt those players have benefitted. However, that does not mean that we were motivated to go to war for their interests over the national interest. That kind of argument parallels the America-First rhetoric in the U.S. in 1940 that said that Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany in order to benefit ‘Jewish moneyed interests’ in Europe.
I have very strong doubts about anyone who puts forward conspiracy theories that suggest that a U.S. president would act against what he knew were the national interests in order to benefit a small segment of our population or to benefit his own financial concerns. President Bush clearly made a terrible mistake in Iraq. But I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for our country.
“Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns.”
Oil is a fungible commodity. Iraq’s oil would be ‘available’ with war or without. Hence, availablity doesn’t make sense as a motivator for going to war.
(Note: the fact that Iraq has a lot of oil, which means a lot of money, was clearly a huge factor in why we — and most countries — viewed Saddam as a threat. Without the money, he’s just a tinpot tyrant. With money, he can project outward his aggression.)
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil. In fact, Europe is now and always has been far more dependent on Gulf oil than we have.
Wu Ming writes: 1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world.
That is, of course, true. But there’s no way that our motivation to go to war in Iraq was so that we would jack up oil prices. High oil prices are really bad for our economy.
“getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze.”
Before the Iraq War, the U.S. not only had army, naval and air bases all over the Middle East, including in the UAE, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, and in many other regional countries, but there were no other powers even close to us there in force projection. As such, going to war in Iraq did not and could not have increased our marginal power to ‘threaten,’ as you suggest. (And because the war has been such an abysmal failure, our relative power has declined.)
“especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.”
It’s been a blessing to us to leave those. We began relocating our forces to the UAE well before the Iraq War.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.”
First, if a popularly elected government is begging you to stay in their country, it’s not really ‘an occupation.’
Second, there is no country in the world in which the nationalization of their oil production has improved efficiencies. Look, for example, at the mess Pemex has caused in Mexico ever since it was nationalized. I would not have any romantic notions about nationalized industries.
“but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house.”
No doubt those players have benefitted. However, that does not mean that we were motivated to go to war for their interests over the national interest. That kind of argument parallels the America-First rhetoric in the U.S. in 1940 that said that Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany in order to benefit ‘Jewish moneyed interests’ in Europe.
I have very strong doubts about anyone who puts forward conspiracy theories that suggest that a U.S. president would act against what he knew were the national interests in order to benefit a small segment of our population or to benefit his own financial concerns. President Bush clearly made a terrible mistake in Iraq. But I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for our country.
“Availability of oil certainly was a factor in the administration’s strategic concerns.”
Oil is a fungible commodity. Iraq’s oil would be ‘available’ with war or without. Hence, availablity doesn’t make sense as a motivator for going to war.
(Note: the fact that Iraq has a lot of oil, which means a lot of money, was clearly a huge factor in why we — and most countries — viewed Saddam as a threat. Without the money, he’s just a tinpot tyrant. With money, he can project outward his aggression.)
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil. In fact, Europe is now and always has been far more dependent on Gulf oil than we have.
Wu Ming writes: 1. high oil prices from constricted supply means huge profits if you’re selling oil anywhere in the world.
That is, of course, true. But there’s no way that our motivation to go to war in Iraq was so that we would jack up oil prices. High oil prices are really bad for our economy.
“getting bases right in the middle of it allows the us to threaten other countries’ oil supply in the decades to come, as peak oil + ever-increasing global oil consumption create a squeeze.”
Before the Iraq War, the U.S. not only had army, naval and air bases all over the Middle East, including in the UAE, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, and in many other regional countries, but there were no other powers even close to us there in force projection. As such, going to war in Iraq did not and could not have increased our marginal power to ‘threaten,’ as you suggest. (And because the war has been such an abysmal failure, our relative power has declined.)
“especially since we got encouraged to leave our bases in saudi arabia.”
It’s been a blessing to us to leave those. We began relocating our forces to the UAE well before the Iraq War.
3. the us occupation has indeed written an energy bill for the iraqi parliament, and pressured it heavily into signing it, that sells off iraq’s previously nationalized oil industry to multinational corporations for “development.”
First, if a popularly elected government is begging you to stay in their country, it’s not really ‘an occupation.’
Second, there is no country in the world in which the nationalization of their oil production has improved efficiencies. Look, for example, at the mess Pemex has caused in Mexico ever since it was nationalized. I would not have any romantic notions about nationalized industries.
“but it certainly benefits a lot of politically well-connected oil, military contracting and reconstruction corporations that are close to the white house.”
No doubt those players have benefitted. However, that does not mean that we were motivated to go to war for their interests over the national interest. That kind of argument parallels the America-First rhetoric in the U.S. in 1940 that said that Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany in order to benefit ‘Jewish moneyed interests’ in Europe.
I have very strong doubts about anyone who puts forward conspiracy theories that suggest that a U.S. president would act against what he knew were the national interests in order to benefit a small segment of our population or to benefit his own financial concerns. President Bush clearly made a terrible mistake in Iraq. But I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for our country.
Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets. Unrestrained, it moves seamlessly from the bloodless to the bloody. It is no surprise to see the Iraq debacle spring from this nexus of neocon militarism and unrestrained free-market ideologies.
Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets. Unrestrained, it moves seamlessly from the bloodless to the bloody. It is no surprise to see the Iraq debacle spring from this nexus of neocon militarism and unrestrained free-market ideologies.
Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets. Unrestrained, it moves seamlessly from the bloodless to the bloody. It is no surprise to see the Iraq debacle spring from this nexus of neocon militarism and unrestrained free-market ideologies.
Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets. Unrestrained, it moves seamlessly from the bloodless to the bloody. It is no surprise to see the Iraq debacle spring from this nexus of neocon militarism and unrestrained free-market ideologies.
“Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets.”
That’s the exact wording that the people of North Korea broadcast to the victims of capitalism in South Korea. And they are the same words that the Red Chinese used to broadcast into Hong Kong. It must have been why millions of Chinese were fleeing the terror of free markets in Hong Kong, in order to make it safely into Red China… Oh, wait. The millions were flowing exactly the other way. So much for that theory.
I love when people who have no understanding of economics spout unsupportable economic theories. The fact is that prior to the development of capitalism in Holland (in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition), brutal poverty was the overriding condition everywhere in the world. But once market rationalism (aka capitalism) developed, poverty was eased tremendously in all countries that allowed market economics. And that continues to this day, as the hundreds of millions of formerly empoverished Red Chinese (or even the free Chinese of Taiwan) can tell you.
“Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets.”
That’s the exact wording that the people of North Korea broadcast to the victims of capitalism in South Korea. And they are the same words that the Red Chinese used to broadcast into Hong Kong. It must have been why millions of Chinese were fleeing the terror of free markets in Hong Kong, in order to make it safely into Red China… Oh, wait. The millions were flowing exactly the other way. So much for that theory.
I love when people who have no understanding of economics spout unsupportable economic theories. The fact is that prior to the development of capitalism in Holland (in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition), brutal poverty was the overriding condition everywhere in the world. But once market rationalism (aka capitalism) developed, poverty was eased tremendously in all countries that allowed market economics. And that continues to this day, as the hundreds of millions of formerly empoverished Red Chinese (or even the free Chinese of Taiwan) can tell you.
“Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets.”
That’s the exact wording that the people of North Korea broadcast to the victims of capitalism in South Korea. And they are the same words that the Red Chinese used to broadcast into Hong Kong. It must have been why millions of Chinese were fleeing the terror of free markets in Hong Kong, in order to make it safely into Red China… Oh, wait. The millions were flowing exactly the other way. So much for that theory.
I love when people who have no understanding of economics spout unsupportable economic theories. The fact is that prior to the development of capitalism in Holland (in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition), brutal poverty was the overriding condition everywhere in the world. But once market rationalism (aka capitalism) developed, poverty was eased tremendously in all countries that allowed market economics. And that continues to this day, as the hundreds of millions of formerly empoverished Red Chinese (or even the free Chinese of Taiwan) can tell you.
“Free market capitalism has been described as mafia-like warfare using bank statements instead of bullets.”
That’s the exact wording that the people of North Korea broadcast to the victims of capitalism in South Korea. And they are the same words that the Red Chinese used to broadcast into Hong Kong. It must have been why millions of Chinese were fleeing the terror of free markets in Hong Kong, in order to make it safely into Red China… Oh, wait. The millions were flowing exactly the other way. So much for that theory.
I love when people who have no understanding of economics spout unsupportable economic theories. The fact is that prior to the development of capitalism in Holland (in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition), brutal poverty was the overriding condition everywhere in the world. But once market rationalism (aka capitalism) developed, poverty was eased tremendously in all countries that allowed market economics. And that continues to this day, as the hundreds of millions of formerly empoverished Red Chinese (or even the free Chinese of Taiwan) can tell you.
BTW, if you are interested in reading a brilliant novel about early Dutch capitalism, read “The Coffee Trader” by David Liss. It is a fascinating book, focused on the Portuguese Jews who fled from the terrors of the Catholic Church and helped to found the world’s first truly free market.
BTW, if you are interested in reading a brilliant novel about early Dutch capitalism, read “The Coffee Trader” by David Liss. It is a fascinating book, focused on the Portuguese Jews who fled from the terrors of the Catholic Church and helped to found the world’s first truly free market.
BTW, if you are interested in reading a brilliant novel about early Dutch capitalism, read “The Coffee Trader” by David Liss. It is a fascinating book, focused on the Portuguese Jews who fled from the terrors of the Catholic Church and helped to found the world’s first truly free market.
BTW, if you are interested in reading a brilliant novel about early Dutch capitalism, read “The Coffee Trader” by David Liss. It is a fascinating book, focused on the Portuguese Jews who fled from the terrors of the Catholic Church and helped to found the world’s first truly free market.
Rich wrote:
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil.
——–
But if you combine Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudia Arabia it is about 20% of our imports. It is the belief of this administration that an unstable, anti-US Iraq is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia.
The neo-cons expressed concern about the stability of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1990’s, shortly after Iraq had tried to annex Kuwait.
One of the stated goals of Paul Wolfowitz and others was to establish permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, with Iraq the most likely site. We are, in fact, building large military bases in Iraq which appear to all purposes to be permanent.
That is part of the strategic aspect of this war, which appears to have been in the planning process well before 9/11. Oil is a factor: anything that threatens 20% of our oil imports is construed by this administration as a threat to national security. Especially when another 10% comes from Venezuela, currently governed by a capricious leader….
Rich wrote:
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil.
——–
But if you combine Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudia Arabia it is about 20% of our imports. It is the belief of this administration that an unstable, anti-US Iraq is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia.
The neo-cons expressed concern about the stability of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1990’s, shortly after Iraq had tried to annex Kuwait.
One of the stated goals of Paul Wolfowitz and others was to establish permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, with Iraq the most likely site. We are, in fact, building large military bases in Iraq which appear to all purposes to be permanent.
That is part of the strategic aspect of this war, which appears to have been in the planning process well before 9/11. Oil is a factor: anything that threatens 20% of our oil imports is construed by this administration as a threat to national security. Especially when another 10% comes from Venezuela, currently governed by a capricious leader….
Rich wrote:
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil.
——–
But if you combine Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudia Arabia it is about 20% of our imports. It is the belief of this administration that an unstable, anti-US Iraq is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia.
The neo-cons expressed concern about the stability of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1990’s, shortly after Iraq had tried to annex Kuwait.
One of the stated goals of Paul Wolfowitz and others was to establish permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, with Iraq the most likely site. We are, in fact, building large military bases in Iraq which appear to all purposes to be permanent.
That is part of the strategic aspect of this war, which appears to have been in the planning process well before 9/11. Oil is a factor: anything that threatens 20% of our oil imports is construed by this administration as a threat to national security. Especially when another 10% comes from Venezuela, currently governed by a capricious leader….
Rich wrote:
“Iraq provides about 5% of our oil imports, ranking 8th among our suppliers.”
It’s actually a bit lower than that, though rising. Nonetheless, that does not make us ‘dependent’ on Iraqi oil.
——–
But if you combine Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudia Arabia it is about 20% of our imports. It is the belief of this administration that an unstable, anti-US Iraq is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia.
The neo-cons expressed concern about the stability of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1990’s, shortly after Iraq had tried to annex Kuwait.
One of the stated goals of Paul Wolfowitz and others was to establish permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, with Iraq the most likely site. We are, in fact, building large military bases in Iraq which appear to all purposes to be permanent.
That is part of the strategic aspect of this war, which appears to have been in the planning process well before 9/11. Oil is a factor: anything that threatens 20% of our oil imports is construed by this administration as a threat to national security. Especially when another 10% comes from Venezuela, currently governed by a capricious leader….
Rich, sorry to be so late to the game, but there are numerous articles around about how the US government is pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass a bill for the development of the Iraqi oil industry on terms that are extremely favorable to US and other transnational oil firms, to an extent that few, if any, other oil producing countries in the world accept them
I believe that Maliki was recently quoted as saying that he thought that he would be forced out by us if the legislation didn’t get out of Parliament by the end of the month
numerically, Iraq only provides a relatively small percentage of oil around the world because of the two wars, the occupation and sanctions in the 1990s
there is a belief that Iraq has substantial untapped reserves, which become even more important when you read some of the claims that Saudi production is declining
anyway, all in all, such rapaciousness as evidenced by the Iraqi legislation is ludicrous, after all, there are numerous examples of countries that just tear up unfavorable deals with transnational oil companies, and, by and large, the companies accept and renegoitate, because, what else can they do?
–Richard Estes
Rich, sorry to be so late to the game, but there are numerous articles around about how the US government is pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass a bill for the development of the Iraqi oil industry on terms that are extremely favorable to US and other transnational oil firms, to an extent that few, if any, other oil producing countries in the world accept them
I believe that Maliki was recently quoted as saying that he thought that he would be forced out by us if the legislation didn’t get out of Parliament by the end of the month
numerically, Iraq only provides a relatively small percentage of oil around the world because of the two wars, the occupation and sanctions in the 1990s
there is a belief that Iraq has substantial untapped reserves, which become even more important when you read some of the claims that Saudi production is declining
anyway, all in all, such rapaciousness as evidenced by the Iraqi legislation is ludicrous, after all, there are numerous examples of countries that just tear up unfavorable deals with transnational oil companies, and, by and large, the companies accept and renegoitate, because, what else can they do?
–Richard Estes
Rich, sorry to be so late to the game, but there are numerous articles around about how the US government is pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass a bill for the development of the Iraqi oil industry on terms that are extremely favorable to US and other transnational oil firms, to an extent that few, if any, other oil producing countries in the world accept them
I believe that Maliki was recently quoted as saying that he thought that he would be forced out by us if the legislation didn’t get out of Parliament by the end of the month
numerically, Iraq only provides a relatively small percentage of oil around the world because of the two wars, the occupation and sanctions in the 1990s
there is a belief that Iraq has substantial untapped reserves, which become even more important when you read some of the claims that Saudi production is declining
anyway, all in all, such rapaciousness as evidenced by the Iraqi legislation is ludicrous, after all, there are numerous examples of countries that just tear up unfavorable deals with transnational oil companies, and, by and large, the companies accept and renegoitate, because, what else can they do?
–Richard Estes
Rich, sorry to be so late to the game, but there are numerous articles around about how the US government is pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass a bill for the development of the Iraqi oil industry on terms that are extremely favorable to US and other transnational oil firms, to an extent that few, if any, other oil producing countries in the world accept them
I believe that Maliki was recently quoted as saying that he thought that he would be forced out by us if the legislation didn’t get out of Parliament by the end of the month
numerically, Iraq only provides a relatively small percentage of oil around the world because of the two wars, the occupation and sanctions in the 1990s
there is a belief that Iraq has substantial untapped reserves, which become even more important when you read some of the claims that Saudi production is declining
anyway, all in all, such rapaciousness as evidenced by the Iraqi legislation is ludicrous, after all, there are numerous examples of countries that just tear up unfavorable deals with transnational oil companies, and, by and large, the companies accept and renegoitate, because, what else can they do?
–Richard Estes